SynthesisBMJ open2025
Effectiveness of education and training programmes to help clinicians assess and classify perineal tears: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor every 100 women having a vaginal birth, approximately four will experience a severe (third-degree or fourth-degree) perineal tear. Severe perineal tears are associated with significant short-term and long-term consequences if not recognised and repaired. There are global efforts to reduce incidence of severe perineal tears including initiatives to strengthen education and training of clinicians in perineal anatomy and perineal tear assessment and classification. This systematic review aimed to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives.
designSystematic review, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), MIDIRS and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched through 15 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting simple or complex interventions aimed at improving the skills and knowledge of clinicians in perineal anatomy and/or the clinical assessment and classification of perineal tears were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and appraised the quality of individual studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool or Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
resultsIn total, 7645 citations were screened and 39 studies included. We identified nine unique interventions including training programmes, short workshops and senior obstetrician supervision. Many studies were from high-income countries, in primary care settings and at high risk of bias.
conclusionsEffective education included practical components, such as hands-on skills and training in perineal anatomy, assessment and classification, rather than senior supervision alone. Ongoing review of practice appears to be crucial for maintaining knowledge and skills. Future research should focus on interventions tailored to limited-resource settings, and the optimal length and intensity of training programmes to assess and classify perineal tears. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020185431.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.